This document discusses communication and collaboration models. It begins by explaining that human communication involves non-verbal cues like eye contact and gestures that provide context. Text-based communication reduces these cues. It then examines models of face-to-face communication, noting how eye contact, gestures, turn-taking, and back channels are used. Models of text-based communication are also discussed, noting how it has weaker grounding constraints and context due to reduced feedback. The document concludes by stating that group work is more complex as it is influenced by social relationships and environment.

1. COMMUNICATION
&
COLLABORATION

2. OVERVIEW
All computer system, single-user or multi-user, interact with the work-groups
And organizations in which they are used.
 We need to understand normal human-human communication:
-face-to-face communication involves eyes, face and body.
-conversation can be analyzed to establish its detailed structure.
 This can be applied to text-based conversation, which has:
-reduce feedback for confirmation.
-less context to disambiguate utterances.
-slower pace of interaction but is more easily reviewed.
 Group working is more complex than that of a single person:
-it is influenced by the physical environment.
-experiments are more difficult to control and record.
-field studies must take into account the social situation.

3. Z
COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION
MODELS

4. FACE-TO-FACE COMMUNICATION
Face-to-face contact is the most primitive form of communication – primitive, that is, in
Terms of technology. If, on the other hand, we consider the style of communication, the interplay
Between different channels and productivity, we instead find that face-to-face is most sophisticated
Communication mechanism available.
The first thing to note is that face-to-face communication involves not just speech and hearing, but
Also the subtle use of body language and eyegaze.
We will discuss a range of these phenomena, and how they influence our use of computer-mediated
Communication.

5. 1. Transfer effects and personal space
When we come to use computer-mediated forms of communication, we carry forward all our expectations and
Social norms from face-to-face communication.
Furthermore, the rules of face-to-face conversation are not conscious, so, when they are broken, we do not
Always recognize the true problem.
2. Eye contact and gaze
Long-term gazing into one another’s eyes is usually reserved for lovers. However, normal conversation uses
Eye contact extensively, if not as intently.
Our eyes tell us whether our colleague is listening or not; they can convey interest, confusion or boredom.
Sporadic direct eye contact(both looking at one another’s eyes) is important in establishing a sense of
Engagement and social presence.

6. 3. Gestures and body language
In a similar but more direct way, we use our hands to indicate items of interest. This may be conscious and
Deliberate as we point to the item, or may be a slight wave of the hand or alignment of the body to allow our
Colleagues to read our movements. This can be a serious problem since our conversation is full of expressions
Such as ‘let’s move this one there’, where ‘this and ‘there’ are indicated by gestures (or eyegaze).

7. 4. Back channel confirmation and interruption
It is easy to thinks of conversation as a sequence of utterances: A says something, then B something,
then back to A. This process called turn-taking and is one of the fundamental structures of conversation.
However, each utterance is itself the result of intricate negotiation and interaction.
These back channel responses use a range of sensory channels. So, as we restrict the forms of
communication we lose the back channels. Even video communications tend to use, at most, head and
shoulder shots, so we lose some body movement and gestures
5.Turn-taking
As well as giving confirmation to the speaker that you understand, and indications when you do not, back
Channels can be used to interrupt politely. Starting to speak in the middle of someone’s utterance can be
rude, but one can say something like ‘well uh’ accompanied by a slight raising of the hands and a general
Tensing of the body and screwing of the eyes.
This tells the speaker that you would like to interrupt, allowing a graceful transition. In this case, the listener
Requested the floor. Turn-taking is the process by which the roles of speaker and listener are exchanged.

8. CONVERSATION
There are three uses for theories of conversation in CSW.
• First, they can be used to analyze transcripts, for example from a electronic
conference. This can help us to understand how well the participants are
coping with electronic communication.
• Secondly, they can used as guide for design decisions – an understanding of
normal human-human conversation can help avoid blunders in the design of
electronic media.
• Thirdly, and most controversially, they can be used to drive design –
structuring the system around the theory.

9. 1.Basic conversational structure
For example, slightly different version of Alison and Brian’s conversation may look like this;
Alison: Do you fancy that film
Brian: The uh(500ms) with the black cat – ‘ Green whatsit?
Alison: Yeah, got at uh… (looks a watch – 1.2s)..20 to? Brian: Sure
This transcript is quite heavily annotated with lengths of pauses and even Alison’s action of looking at
watch however, it certainly lacks the wealth of gesture and back channel activity that were present during
the actual conversation.
Transcripts may be less well documented, perhaps dropping the pause timings, or more detailed, adding more
Actions, where people were looking and some back channeling.

10. 2. Context
• Internal context – dependence on earlier utterances.
• External context – dependence on the environment.
Arguably, even a complete conversation is heavily context dependent – without knowing the situation and the
social relations between the participants, how can we understand their words? Taking a more pragmatic
approach, the importance of external context has implications for system design and for data collection.

11. n
3. Topics, focus and forms of utterance
Given that conversation is so dependent on context, it is important that the participants have shared focus
Alison: Oh, look at your roses..
Brian: Mmm, but I’ved had trouble with greenfly.
Alison: They’re the symbol of the english summer.
Brian: Greenfly? Alison: No roses silly!
In general, we can go through a transcript annotating the utterances by the topics to which they refer. The identi-
fication of topics and assigning utterances to them is a somewhat subjective affair, and one may want to use
Several levels of topic categorization.

12. n
4 Breakdown and repair
The breakdown began with a confused gesture, but led to a divergence of dialog focus. Happily, most
breakdowns are detected more quickly, but the deeper the breakdown, and the longer it lasts, the more
difficult it is recover.
5. Constructing a shared understanding
We have seen that human conversation is in itself inherently ambiguous, relying on context and shared
Understanding between the parties to disambiguate utterances.

13. n
6. Speech act theory
A particular form of conversational analysis, speech act theory, has been both influential and controversial
In CSCW. Not only is it an analytic technique, but it has been used as the building force behind the design of a
commercial system Coordinator

14. Speech-Act Theory
● A specific form of conversational analysis
● Utterances characterised by what they do, they’re acts
○ e.g., “I'm hungry”
■ propositional meaning – hunger
■ intended effect – “get me some food”
○ Classic example: “I now pronounce you man & wife”

15. Speech-Act Theory
● Basic conversational acts (illocutionary points):
○ Promises
○ Requests
○ Declarations
○ Assertions
○ Counters
○ Reneges
○ Withdrawals

16. Speech-Act Theory
● Speech acts need not be
spoken
○ e.g., silence often interpreted as
acceptance

17. Speech-Act Theory
● Generic patterns of acts can be identified:
○ Conversation for action (CfA)
■ Seeks to obtain a specific request
○ Conversation for clarification (CfC)
■ Usually embedded in CfA - to clarify the requested action
○ Conversation for possibilities (CfP)
■ Looking towards future actions
○ Conversation for Orientation (CfO)
■ Building a shared understanding

18. n
TEXT-BASED COMMUNICATION
There are four types of textual communication in current groupware:
• Discrete – directed message as in email. There is no explicit connection between
different messages, except in so far as the text of the message refers to a
previous one.
• Linear – participants messages are added in (usually temporal) order to the end of single transcript.
• Non-Linear – When message are linked to one another in a hypertext fashion.
• Spatial – where messages are arranged on a two-dimensional surface.

19. n
1. Back channels and affective state
One of the most profound differences between face-to-face and text-based communication is the lack of
Fine-grained channels.
2. Grounding contraints
Clark and Brennan (71) describe the properties of these channel in terms of grounding constraints. Thse
Include:
• Cotemporality – an utterance is heard as soon as it is said (or typed);
• Simultaneity – the participants can send and receive at the same time;
• Sequence – the utterances are ordered
These are all constraints which are weaker in text-based compared with face-to-face interaction.

20. nt
4. Context and deixis
We saw that one of conversation was turn-taking (Section 14.2.5). The last transcript was an
example of a breakdown in turn-taking. In fact, such breakdowns are quite rare in two-party
Electronic conversation and are quickly corrected.
3. Turn-taking
We have seen how important context is in ordinary speech. Utterances are highly ambiguous and
are only meaningful with respect to external context, the state of the world, and internal context,
the state of the conversation.

21. 5. Pace and Granularity
Pace of Conversation- the rate of turn taking
• face-to-face - every few seconds
• telephone - half a minute
• email - hours or days
face-to-face conversation is highly interactive
If initial utterance is vague feedback gives cues for comprehension
lower pace = less feedback = less interactive

22. GROUP WORKING
So far we have been principally looking at the properties of direct communication, and largely two-party
Conversations. Group behavior is more complex still as we have to take into account the dynamic
social relationship during group working
We will begin by looking at several factors which affect group working, and then discuss the problems
of studying group working. This section deals with groups that are actively working together, rather than
the organizational issues considered in the previous chapter, which are primarily concerned with the
long-term structures within which people work.

23. 1. Group dynamics 3. Distributed cognition
2.Physical layout
Whereas organizational relationships
Such as supervisor/supervisee are
Relatively stable
The role and relationships within a
Group may change dramatically
within the lifetime of a task and even
Within a single work session.
In general, the physical layout of a
room has a profound effect upon the
working relationship of those in it. This
is particularly obvious for meeting
rooms, but should be considered in any
group-working environment.
As well as being unobtrusive, the
orientation of computing equipment can
affect group working.
A school of thinking has recently
developed which regards thinking as
happening not just within the head, but
in the external relationships with things
in the world and with other people.
This viewpoint is called distributed
cognition

24. SUMMARY
Face-to-face communication is extremely complex. People maintain precise distances, which can be disrupted through
video links. Each utterance is mediated by subtle back channel responses signifying agreement, or on attempting to
interrupt.
Body movement, facial expression, eye contact and eyegaze are all used for these back channels and also to establish
context. At a higher level, the structure of conversation can be seen as a sequence of turns , usually alternating between
participants.
Context is important in disambiguating utterances, especially when deictic reference is also used. This also depends on
the participants establishing a common understanding during the conversation. Breakdowns do occur in conversation
repair is very effective. Speech act theory. A detailed analysis of conversational structure, has been used to drive the
design of Coordinator, a highly controversial, commercial, structured messaging system.
Text-based communication loses most of the low-level feedback of face-to-face conversation. This, and the possibility of
overlapping turns, makes it more difficult to establish the context of a textual utterance, and therefore to disambiguate
deixis. The reduced pace of text-based conversation means that participants are forced to increase the granularity of their
messages. They may achieve this by multiplexing messages or by being eager, predicting their colleagues response.
Group dynamics make it very difficult to predict how a particular group will behave. In particular. Small things, such as the
layout of chairs in a room, can have a major effect. We can see the thinking in groups as being distributed, not locked in
any individual, but being within the whole group and the physical representations they use.